Extracted text (via pymupdf)
75719 characters
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 1 of 26
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 12, 2020 Board of Supervisors Auditorium
9:30 a.m. 301 W. Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Lucas Schlosser, Chairman
Mr. Michael Cowley, Vice Chair
Mr. Nathan Andersen (telephonically)
Mr. Greg Arnett
Mr. Bruce Burrows
Mr. Jimmy Lindblom (telephonically)
Ms. Francisca Montoya
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Broc Hiatt
Ms. Jennifer Ruby
Mr. Robert Zamora
STAFF PRESENT:
Ms. Jen Pokorski, Planning & Development Director
Mr. Matt Holm, Planning Supervisor
Ms. Rachel Applegate, Senior Planner
Mr. Sean Watkins, Planner
Ms. Rosalie Pinney, Recording Secretary
COUNTY AGENCIES:
Mr. Wayne Peck, County Attorney
CONSENT:
Z2019042, Z2019135, Z2020006
REGULAR:
TA2018002, Z2019130, Z2018083, Z2019136
Chairman Schlosser called the meeting to order at 9:43 a.m. and made the standard
announcements.
Chairman Schlosser asked if there were any changes or comments to the minutes for
January 16 and February 13, none.
COMMISSION ACTION: Chairman Schlosser approved the January 16 and February 13,
2020 minutes as written.
Mr. Holm noted item #2 – Z2019130 is moving from the consent agenda to the regular
agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Zoning - Z2019042
District 4
Applicant:
Jessica Sarkissian, AICP, Upfront Planning & Entitlements, LLC
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 2 of 26
Location:
Generally located 2,198’ south of the southwest corner of 348th Ave.
and Van Buren St. in the Tonopah area
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for public assembly for canine pool dock
diving competitions in the Rural-43 zoning district - TonoPaws
Special Use Permit - Z2019135
District 4
Applicant:
Gilmore Planning & Landscape Architecture
Location:
Generally located 657 feet southeast of the southeast corner of
Cotton Ln. and Olive Ave. in the Glendale area
Request:
Special Use Permit (SUP) for development of a Rural Metro Fire &
Ambulance Station in the Rural-43 zoning district - Rural Metro Fire &
Ambulance Station
Special Use Permit - Z2020006
District 3
Applicant:
Anthem Community Council
Location:
Anthem Community Park is located south and east of Anthem Way
& Gavilan Peak Pkwy. In the Anthem area
Request:
Modification of Condition ‘v.6’ of case Z 95-53S to delete the
expiration date of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a miniature railroad
at the Anthem Community Park in the R-2 RUPD zoning district -
Anthem Community Park Miniature Railroad
Mr. Holm presented the consent agenda.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Burrows motioned to approve the consent agenda,
Z2019042 with conditions ‘a’-‘i’, Z2019135 with conditions ‘a’-‘k’, and Z2020006 with
deletion of condition ‘v.6’ . Commissioner Montoya second. Approved 7-0.
Z2019042 conditions;
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the site
plan entitled “TonoPaws”, consisting of one (1) full-size sheet, dated
January 15, 2020, stamped dated received on January 19, 2020, except as
modified by the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “TonoPaws”, consisting of six (6) pages, stamped
date received on January 16, 2020, except as modified by the following
conditions.
c.
The Special Use Permit shall expire 15 years from the date if approved by
the Board of Supervisors. If the Special Use Permit is not extended, then at
the expiration of the Special Use Permit, the uses occurring on the property
must be consistent with the underlining zoning district.
d.
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed downward below the
horizontal plane of shielding. All outdoor lighting shall be no greater than
20 feet in height and shall be placed 20 feet from any property line.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 3 of 26
e.
The following development standards shall apply:
a.
Front yard (east) setback of 55 feet;
b.
No screening requirements for parking areas;
c.
¼ inch thick decomposed granite in place of pavement for the
driveways and parking area.
f.
The following Planning Engineering comments shall apply:
a.
The driveway crossing Dickey Wash must be constructed at or below
existing grade. A floodplain use permit will be required for
development within the floodplain.
b.
Permits for site grading for development of the site must be applied
for within 12 months of Board of Supervisors approval of this Special
Use Permit.
c.
Final grading and drainage plan submitted with the second (2nd)
revision submittal must be included as part of the case file.
d.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for
conceptual design only. All development and engineering designs
shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain
Regulations for Maricopa County; Maricopa County Department of
Transportation Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering
policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
e.
Detailed Grading and Drainage Plans showing the new site
improvements must be submitted for approval and acquisition of
building permits for the new site improvements.
g.
Prior to the commencement of the public assembly portion of the existing
home business, there must be approved Building Permits to retrofit the
property to meet current commercial building code requirements.
h.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance.
i.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows for a property use in excess of those permitted by the
zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of a failure to comply with any condition, and at the time of
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 4 of 26
expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert to the zoning
that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and
agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any
conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any
rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell possess the
property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property
from the value of the property from the value it held on the date of
application due to such revocation or expiration of the Special Use Permit.
The Special Use Permit is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in
the same value of the property as if the Special Use Permit had never been
granted.
Z2019135 conditions;
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site
Plan entitled “Special Use Permit for Rural Metro Fire & Ambulance Station“,
consisting of 2 full-size sheets, dated February 13, 2020, and stamped
received February 13, 2020, except as modified by the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “Special Use Permit for Rural Metro Fire &
Ambulance Station”, consisting of 8 pages, dated February 13, 2020, and
stamped received February 13, 2020, except as modified by the following
conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance
with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance;
Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for
Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current
engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
2.
Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for
conceptual design only and does not represent final design
approval nor shall it entitle applicants to future designs that are not
in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance and Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain
Regulations for Maricopa County; and the MCDOT Roadway Design
Manual.
3.
Detailed Grading and Drainage Plans and Final Drainage Report
showing the new site improvements must be submitted for approval
and acquisition of building permits.
d.
The following Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
(MCESD) conditions shall apply:
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 5 of 26
1.
NOID must be obtained prior to construction permit approval.
e.
This special use permit is valid for a period of 20 years and shall expire on
April 8, 2040, or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days,
whichever occurs first. All site improvements associated with the special use
permit shall be removed within 90 days of such expiration or termination of
use.
f.
All buildings subject to noise attenuation as per ARS § 28-8482(B).
g.
The following Rural-43 Zoning District standards shall apply:
a.
Height – 30’
b.
Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor Height – 30’
c.
Front Yard – 40’
d.
Side Yard – 30’
e.
Street-side Yard – 20’
f.
Rear Yard – 40’
g.
Lot Area – 1 acre
h.
Lot Width – 145’
i.
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit – 1 acre
j.
Lot Coverage – 25%
k.
Parking Spaces Required – 13 (12 Regular + 1 ADA)
h.
The following Luke Air Force Base condition shall apply:
FHF LLC shall notify future occupants/tenants that they are located near a
military airport with the following language:
“You are locating in a residential dwelling outside the “territory in the vicinity
of a military airport,” however aircraft flying in this area are authorized to fly
as low as 1,500 feet above the ground. You will be subject to direct
overflights and noise by Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity.
Luke Air Force Base executes an average of approximately 165 overflights
per day. Although Luke’s primary flight paths are located within 20 miles
from the base, jet noise will be apparent throughout the area as aircraft
transient to and from the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range and other
flight areas.
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off
its runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more
noticeable during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the
clouds.
Luke Air Force Base’s normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until
approximately midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will
occur outside these hours and during most weekends.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 6 of 26
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website at
www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment or contact the Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department.”
Such notification shall be permanently posted on not less than a 3 foot by
5 foot sign in front of all leasing offices and be permanently posted on the
front door of all leasing offices on not less than 8½ inch by 11 inch sign.
i.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance.
j.
The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in
value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance
with conditions.
k.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the time of
expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert to the zoning
that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and
agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any
conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any
rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess
the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property
from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or
expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the
value of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit
is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the
property as if the Special Use Permit had never been granted.
Z2020006 conditions;
v.
Development of the Miniature Railroad at Anthem Community Park shall be
subject to a Special Use Permit in conformance with the following:
1) The 15-page narrative report entitled “Miniature Railroad at Anthem
Community Park – Special Use Permit Narrative Report – Case # Z 95-53S”,
prepared by Earl, Curley and Lagarde but not so indicated, dated revised
November 8, 1999, and stamped received November 22, 1999 – except
that the Special Use Permit shall only apply to that portion of parcel 203-
03-328 north of Venture Court, and except as modified by the following
stipulations.
2) The three-sheet site plan, including elevation drawings, entitled “Special
Use Permit for Miniature Railroad - Anthem Community Park – Anthem
Phoenix by Del Webb”, prepared by BRW a D & M Group Company with
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 7 of 26
the cover sheet dated November 17, 1999 and date-stamped by the
project engineer November 19, 1999, and stamped received November
22, 1999 – except as modified by the following stipulations.
3) Operation of the train shall be limited to daylight hours that will vary by
season. Night time use until 10:00 p.m. shall be permitted during holidays
and occasional special events.
4) The scope of the Special Use Permit only includes railroad-related facilities
and activities. General park facilities and activities are not subject to the
Special Use Permit.
5) As noted in stipulation “i”, major changes to this site plan will require review
and approval by the Board of Supervisors, upon recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff of the Planning and Development
Department, Project Management Division may administratively approve
minor changes. Expansion of the railroad track may be administratively
approved by staff.
Chairman Schlosser moved item #7 – TA2018002 to be heard first on the regular agenda.
REGULAR AGENDA
Text Amendment - TA2018002 (revisited from 1/30/20)
All Districts
Applicant:
Earl, Curley & Lagarde
Requests:
Text Amendment to amend Chapter 2, Definitions; Section 501,
Article 501.2.4; Section 601, Article 601.2.3 of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) relating to Group Homes
Ms. Pokorski presented TA2018002 and noted as proposed by the applicant the changes
would permit no more than 10 minors, elderly persons or persons with a disability to reside
in a group home setting as of right in any rural residential and multi-family zoning district
for any length of time. The ordinance currently requires long term residency for the group
home to be allowed by right. Staff interprets long term as one year. The staff interpretation
has recently been upheld by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed amendment
removes the long term and adds specific language for addiction recovery and refers to
state law requires licensure for sober living homes. This amendment doesn’t apply solely
to sober living homes, it applies to all types of group homes. Our zoning districts are
designed to encourage the most appropriate use of the land. The use is allowed in each
zoning district are determined by a variety of factors including the availability of services.
This text amendment will affect all group homes will open the doors to uses that may not
be appropriate in all zoning districts. Other short term type group facilities include
hospices would then be allowed by right in all rural residential multi-family zoning districts.
Unincorporated county is not a city, portions of the county do not have fire services and
the response time are quite long and there are areas that don’t have all weather access.
In some portions of the county during rain events, when washes run they can be cut off
for a couple of days. Staff agrees some thoughtful deliberate revisions to this ordinance
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 8 of 26
are needed. Given our concerns with public safety and the broad implications of this
change which is a complicated issue, this should be led and addressed by a staff driven
text amendment. It is more than just a policy decision, it also involves legal questions with
the Americans Disability Act (ADA) and also the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), and so
for those reasons staff has recommended denial. We are recommending an indefinite
continuance if the applicant agrees. If the applicant does not agree, we are
recommending denial for the same reasons that we have presented before.
Mr. Rod Jarvis, the applicant said no he would not support an indefinite continuance. The
concerns staff are outlining are spurious. Group homes have been operating in
unincorporated Maricopa County for many years. The concerns about their safety apply
to every single family residence in unincorporated Maricopa County. Commissioner Hiatt
recommended we eliminate the language, “by a utility right-of-way at least 300 feet in
width” and that is fine, we are simply making the separation requirement even effective
by eliminating one exemption. Mr. Jarvis read a letter written by Jeff Spellman from Take
Action Phoenix, a neighborhood activist group that have been most active in the lengthy
process with the City of Phoenix, and ultimately coming up with their own group homes
sober living ordinance. They went through such an extensive study and they ended up
allowing five group homes within a quarter-mile of each other and today we are talking
about one.
Commissioner Andersen said he recognizes this is a complicated issue, and he
appreciates all the work staff has done. He is comfortable to what’s being proposed, and
he likes the distancing provision, and he is comfortable removing the long term duration
and increasing the number of residents from 5 to 10. He would be in favor of the County
continuing to look at this issue on a more comprehensive level but not at the expense of
holding this applicant’s application up any longer. He recommends approval and this
going forward to the Board of Supervisors with the recommended change by
Commissioner Hiatt.
Commissioner Lindblom said he doesn’t want to continue this. The proposal offers to
create spacing requirements, and he likes what Commissioner Hiatt proposed. On a pure
zoning perspective, he has to look at it just that way. We are only trying to change from
5 to 10 people, adding a requirement that someone be there 24/7, and create the
spacing requirement that wasn’t there before. He does know we need to approach this
in a comprehensive way. The applicant has been very good in working with everyone
and staff addressing the issues that are very complex. For all these reasons he supports
this text amendment change.
Commissioner Montoya said her concern has been we need to take a comprehensive
approach, and we need to hear from the pertinent stakeholders. She would not like to
see these group homes popping up in rural communities. She understands the
applicant’s need and concern, but she is more concerned with our overall community
in the entire County. She supports the approach where we can have the county do some
research and find a way to come up with a text amendment that allows for everyone’s
input and can come to an agreement. She understands this may take some time to think
and analyze, and take into account the concerns of everyone who may be impacted,
and we come up with a viable solution. Not just residents but operators of group homes
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 9 of 26
so neighborhoods are not impacted adversely and we can address a serious problem in
our community while at the same time making sure residents’ concerns and key
stakeholders issues are addressed.
Commissioner Lindblom said as far as stakeholder input we have had several ZIPPOR
meetings where there has been opportunity for the community to get involved.
Chairman Schlosser said he would like to echo Commissioner Montoya’s comments and
concerns, and he has the same concerns staff has expressed regarding the ADA and the
FFHA, and the public safety issues as well. He agrees this has gone on a long time now
but he believes this should be a staff driven text amendment in conjunction with counsel.
Chairman Schlosser asked the applicant if he is declining the indefinite continuance. Mr.
Jarvis said that is correct.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Lindblom motioned to approve TA2018002 with
revised language proposed. Commissioner Andersen second. Approved 4-3.
SECTION 201. DEFINITIONS
Group Home
A dwelling unit shared as a primary residence by NO MORE THAN TEN minors,
handicapped or elderly persons, OR PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY, WHO LIVE TOGETHER as
a single housekeeping unit, in a long term, family-like environment in which staff persons
provide on-site THE care, training, AND/or support for the NEEDED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL
residents. Such homes or services provided therein shall be licensed by, certified by,
approved by, registered with, funded by or through, or under contract with the State.
(Group homes shall not include homes for the developmentally disabled, defined as
persons afflicted with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy or mental retardation, as regulated
by Arizona Revised Statutes, §36-582.)
Handicapped: Person with a Disability (Disabled Person):
A person who: 1) Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or
more of such person's major life activities; 2) Has a record of having SUCH impairment.
However, "Handicapped" shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a
controlled substance (as defined in § 102 of the Controlled Substance Act [21 United
States Code 802]).; OR 3) IS REGARDED AS HAVING SUCH AN IMPAIRMENT. (ANY ONE OF
1-3 IS HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS A "DISABILITY."). WITHOUT LIMITATION, A PERSONS WITH
ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL AND/OR ILLEGAL DRUGS, WHO IS SEEKING TO RECOVER FROM
SUCH ADDICTION AND IS NOT USING ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS, SHALL BE
CONSIDERED TO BE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY, AS DEFINED IN UNITED STATES CODE 28
C.F.R. § 36.105(B)(2)(2017).
ARTICLE 501.2. USE REGULATIONS: A building or premises shall be used only for the
following purposes:
4.
Group homes for not more than ten persons, subject to the
following performance criteria:
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 10 of 26
a.
Dispersal: No such home shall be located on a lot with a
property line within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in
any direction, of the lot line of another such group home.
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE
FOREGOING,
NO
DISPERSAL/SEPARATION SHALL BE REQUIRED WHERE A
GROUP HOME IS SEPARATED FROM ANOTHER GROUP HOME
BY A FREEWAY OR CANAL.
b.
If licensing is required by the State of Arizona, for the use,
proof of such licensure shall be provided available to the
Department of Planning and Development prior to the use
being established. Group Homes for addiction recovery shall
comply with all standards set forth in ARS Section 36-2061, et
seq.
c.
Residents shall not be Aadjudicated Persons.
d.
Resident staff, if any, are included with the ten-resident
limitation.
e.
If staff are not in residence, at least one staff member shall
be on duty at the group home at all times.
f.
There shall be no sign or other exterior indication of a group
home visible from any public street.
g.
All parking for the Group Home shall be on site.
h.
Prior to occupancy of a Group Home, the owner, or owner’s
representative, shall submit an application for zoning
certification, on a form provided by Maricopa County,
accompanied by: a floor plan, a notarized statement
detailing qualifications, copies of any required state of
Arizona licenses, and an affidavit of compliance indicating
use of the subject site as Group Home. The Zoning
Administrator shall have 30 days from the date of submission
of such application to conduct a review of the application.
Any Zoning Certification not specifically denied, citing
specific reasons for such denial, in written notice to the
applicant, shall be deemed granted. If such application is
timely denied, the applicant may correct any deficiencies
and resubmit same, subject to the review period set forth
above.
ARTICLE 601.2. USE REGULATIONS: A building or premises shall be used only for the following
purposes:
3.
Group homes for not more than ten persons, subject to the following
performance criteria:
a.
Dispersal: No such home shall be located on a lot with a
property line within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in
any direction, of the lot line of another such group home.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 11 of 26
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE
FOREGOING,
NO
DISPERSAL/SEPARATION SHALL BE REQUIRED WHERE A
GROUP HOME IS SEPARATED FROM ANOTHER GROUP HOME
BY A UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT LEAST 300 FEET IN WIDTH, OR
BY A FREEWAY OR CANAL.
b.
If licensing is required by the State of Arizona, for the use,
proof of such licensure shall be provided available to the
Department of Planning and Development prior to the use
being established. Group Homes for addiction recovery shall
comply with all standards set forth in ARS Section 36-2061, et
seq.
c.
Residents shall not be Aadjudicated Persons.
d.
Resident staff, if any, are included with the ten-resident
limitation.
e.
If staff are not in residence, at least one staff member shall
be on duty at the group home at all times.
f.
There shall be no sign or other exterior indication of a group
home visible from any public street.
g.
All parking for the Group Home shall be on site.
h.
Prior to occupancy of a Group Home, the owner, or owner’s
representative, shall submit an application for zoning
certification, on a form provided by Maricopa County,
accompanied by: a floor plan, a notarized statement
detailing qualifications, copies of any required state of
Arizona licenses, and an affidavit of compliance indicating
use of the subject site as Group Home. The Zoning
Administrator shall have 30 days from the date of submission
of such application to conduct a review of the application.
Any Zoning Certification not specifically denied, citing
specific reasons for such denial, in written notice to the
applicant, shall be deemed granted. If such application is
timely denied, the applicant may correct any deficiencies
and resubmit same, subject to the review period set forth
above.
Zoning - Z2019130
District 4
Applicant:
Jordan Colbert, Beth Emeth Congregation
Location:
Generally located approx. 650 feet north of the NWC of the
intersection of R.H. Johnson Blvd. and Meeker Blvd., in the Sun City
West area
Request:
Zone Change from Rural-43 to R-5- Beth Emeth Congregation Zone
Change Request
Mr. Watkins presented Z2019130 and noted the request is to change the current RU-43
designation to R-5 with no precise plan of development. The intent is to provide for future
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 12 of 26
development for senior housing, age restricted to 55 years and older by a future
developer. Surrounding properties include a church to the north on RU-43 property and
a church to the south on C-2, an existing synagogue to the east on RU-43 property and
a small lot single-family age restricted residential properties to the west R-3 zoned
properties. The conditions for the zone change request include a minimum age restriction
of 55 and over, and building design consideration for noise attenuation because the site
is within the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base which will be implemented as part as the future
Plan of Development (POD) and building permits. Staff recommends approval of the
zone change request.
Mr. Jordan Colbert, the applicant said over the years we did not need as much parking
as we had, and 1-1/2 years ago we repaved part of the parking lot the area they use.
They also had the property subdivided into 1-1/3 and 1-2/3 acre parcels. The parcel we
are talking about today is the 1-1/3 acre to the rear of the property. We thought at the
time we would sell the property to a builder or developer to build elder oriented housing,
but had no interest in developing it themselves. The three congregations, the two
churches and the synagogue with most of their congregants are elderly, this would
provide easy access to their church or synagogue. Pathways can be provided between
the property and the adjacent churches to provide pedestrian or scooter access. Sun
City West has a shortage for new houses and this would help provide access to the
elderly. Any construction done on the property would have to be in full compliance with
the zoning and building regulations. We would like to be good neighbors and do not plan
to build a monstrosity back there.
Mr. Brian Halhead said he represents two HOA’s that are directly west of this proposed
R-5 zone change. There are 81 single-family dwellings in those two HOA’s, and 48 of
them are in the 300 foot radius of this development. We have canvassed these residents
and 79 percent are opposed of this rezoning with the concerns of added density, a
negative impact on property values, the open view at the end of the property, and a
multi-family story building so close to the fence line. An R-5 designation is 40 foot with a
60 percent footprint, and 20 foot setbacks. Mr. Colbert indicated it would be a low level
building, but when you sell property to a developer all he has to live by is the R-5
designation. In Sun City West there are 25 churches with very large parking lots and the
two churches on each side have fairly large parking lots. Rumor is that one of the
churches is looking at having some of their parking lot rezoned. He doesn’t believe more
senior developments are needed, because that would have happened in the first place
and these properties wouldn’t have had such substantial parking lots. This was a planned
development built in 1992 and they’ve enjoyed living their all these years. We don’t need
or want a four-story building to erode our privacy. He encourages the Commission not to
approve this.
Commissioner Arnett asked about the height requirements in that neighborhood. Mr.
Watkins said it is the same as R-3 at 40 foot.
Mr. Halhead asked what is 40 feet, is to the top of the roof or the top of the eaves.
Commissioner Arnett said staff can answer that, but we are here talking about the zoning.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 13 of 26
Mr. Colbert said he spent time driving through that area, and its single family homes with
walls around them and private patios. They have no view from those patios to even see
the property. There is a four foot elevation change from our parking lot up to the level of
the homes behind us. There is also a 6 foot wall at that upper level. The possibility of
whatever is built on that property is going to block the view he doesn’t see how that
could be. The churches and the synagogue are at least 40 feet high. He has heard the
same rumors that churches are looking to build housing. Churches and synagogues are
losing congregants and they are finding ways to survive by selling off part of their property
to stay in business. That is the reason they are doing it, their congregation has dropped
from 360 people years ago to 110. We don’t need all that parking back there anymore.
It will serve two purposes by helping us financially and providing new housing units to
make a better life for them. What’s wrong with starting something new if it betters the
community?
Mr. Halhead said if the zoning allows a 20 foot setback and a 40 foot building goes up it
is going to block a lot of sight lines.
Chairman Schlosser said he wasn’t aware of all the opposition, and this case didn’t get
pulled from the consent agenda until yesterday. This concerns him and he would be
inclined to continue to the next meeting.
Commissioner Arnett said from a land use perspective it is appropriate. In the terms of the
right use and the right amount of density he would support staff’s recommendation for
approval.
Commissioner Andersen asked are we age restricting through the zoning or later through
the CC&R’s or the whole area. Mr. Watkins said there will be a condition of approval
associated with the zone change that will require the implementation of the CC&R’s.
That will implement the 55 year plus age restriction in association with future residential
development of the site. It would be implemented under a Plan of Development in the
future.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Arnett motioned to approve Z2019130 with
conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’. Commissioner Montoya second. Approved 7-0.
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning
Exhibit entitled “Beth Emeth Congregation – Zone Change Exhibit,”
consisting of 1 8.5 x 11-inch sheet, stamped received February 3, 2020,
except as modified by the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “Beth Emeth Congregation Rezone Request”,
consisting of 4 pages, dated January 27, 2020 and stamped received
February 18, 2020, except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 14 of 26
1.
Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no
development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not
limited to drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These
items will be addressed as development plans progress and are
submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement.
2.
A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement
application (i.e. plan of development).
3.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance
with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance;
Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for
Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current
engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
d.
All future buildings subject to noise attenuation as per ARS § 28-8482(B).
e.
The master developer shall notify future homeowners that they are
located within the state-defined “territory in the vicinity of a military
airport” with the following language:
“You are buying a home or property in the ‘vicinity of a military airport’ as
described by State of Arizona statute ARS §28-8481. Your house should
include sound attenuation measures as directed by State law. You will be
subject to direct over flights and noise by Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the
vicinity.
Luke Air Force Base executes over 200,000 flight operations per year, at an
average of approximately 170 overflights per day. Although Luke's primary
flight paths are located within 20 miles from the base, jet noise will be
apparent throughout the area as aircraft transient to and from the Barry M.
Goldwater Gunnery Range and other flight training areas.
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off
its runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more
noticeable during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the
clouds.
Luke Air Force Base's normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until
approximately midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will
occur outside these hours and during most weekends.
Such notification shall be recorded on all Final Plats, be permanently
posted on not less than a 3 foot by 5 foot sign in front of all home sales
offices, be permanently posted on the front door of all home sales offices
on not less than an 8½ inch by 11 inch sign, and be included in all
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 15 of 26
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) as well as the Public Report
and conveyance documents.
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website or
contact the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department.”
f.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance.
g.
The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in
value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance
with conditions.
h.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property shall revert
to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore,
stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply
with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of
application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would
be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date
of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date
the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the
same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
i.
CC&Rs shall be recorded in association with the subject property and shall
include an age-restriction as outlined below. It shall be the responsibility of
the Homeowners’ Association to enforce the CC&Rs. Failure to comply with
this Condition of Approval will be considered substantial noncompliance
with this zone change approval and grounds for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to consider revocation of approval of the zone change and
for the site to revert back to its original Rural-43 zoning designation. An age
restriction shall be recorded in CC&Rs associated with the subject property
prior to issuance of the first building permit on the subject property that
states: “All dwelling units on the subject property will be occupied by at
least one (1) person not less than 55 years in age and no person 18 years or
younger will be allowed to reside there for longer than 90 days.”
Zoning - Z2018083
District 1
Applicant:
Godfrey Romero
Location:
Located at the southwest corner of Riggs Rd. and Hawes Rd. in the
Queen Creek area
Request:
Zone change from Rural-43 to C-2 - Romero Property
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 16 of 26
Ms. Applegate presented Z2018083 and noted the applicant is proposing to develop the
site as an automobile repair shop, and a Plan of Development will be required after
zoning approval with specifics on site design and layout. Staff believes this is an
appropriate location for C-2 which is located at the intersection of two major arterials.
Ingress/egress will be limited to right-in/right-out along both arterials due to the short
frontages. The site is less appropriate for single-family residential as the lot is substandard
in width and area, and was granted a legal non-conforming status in 2016 due to the
right-of-way taking for both Riggs and Hawes Road. There’s been no response from the
adjacent neighbors or areas of interest. Staff did receive a letter of opposition from the
Town of Queen Creek with concerns over compatibility with existing rural land uses. Staff
notes the Queen Creek Area Plan designates the property directly to the north as
‘Neighborhood’ land use, which allows densities up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The site
to the north is currently developed as R1-18 PAD zoning with an existing subdivision not in
compliance with the rural character of the area. The neighborhood land use allows for
commercial development on sites less than 20 acres with direct access to at least one
arterial and one collector street. The subject property we are dealing with today, is
designated rural with the town’s plan that allows for commercial land uses including
garage industry. Staff believes due to the site location along two arterials and utilization
for an automobile tire shop and repair the land use does meet the requirements of the
Queen Creek Area Plan within the rural and neighborhood land uses. Staff notes other
comments related to site development and design by Queen Creek will be addressed
as part of the Plan of Development application. The drive-thru lanes are no longer
applicable as the restaurant is no longer proposed with this site development. Parking will
be evaluated with square footage of the building. Vehicle screening along right-of-way
will also comply with Maricopa County ordinance standards. Staff is concerned about
the rezoning to C-2 without a commercial unit plan of development (CUPD) which would
allow all identified commercial uses within the county ordinance utilize septic for
wastewater. A CUPD would limit commercial uses that could accommodate via septic
systems. Staff recommend the Commission include a CUPD to this application to limit
commercial uses using septic and to alleviate the concerns raised by the Town of Queen
Creek. Staff spoke with the applicant and he is in agreement to modify the application
to include a C-2 CUPD to limit the land uses to auto, tire service and repair.
Mr. Godfrey Romero, the applicant said he is here to request the approval from
residential to commercial zoning for an automotive and repair tire service.
Commissioner Arnett asked if he was okay with all of the stipulations. Mr. Godfrey said
yes.
COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Burrows motioned to approve Z2018083 to C-2
CUPD with conditions ‘a’ – ‘g’. Commissioner Montoya second. Approved 7-0.
a.
Development of the site shall be in conformance with the Narrative Report
entitled “Purpose of Request”, consisting of 2 pages stamped received
December 13, 2019 except as modified by the following conditions.
b.
The applicant/property owner shall submit a ‘will serve’ letter from Queen
Creek County Island Fire District for fire protection services for the project
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 17 of 26
site. A copy of the ‘will serve’ letter shall be required as part of the initial
construction permit submittal.
c.
A CUPD overlay is applied to limit the land uses to auto and tire service and
repair.
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no
development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not
limited to drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These
items will be addressed as development plans progress and are
submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement.
2.
A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future site plan
application.
3.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with
Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage
Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County;
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies,
standards and best practices at the time of application for
construction.
e.
The C-2 CUPD zoning approval is conditional per Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance Article 304.6. Within five (5) years of Board of Supervisors’ approval
there shall be administrative approval of a Plan of Development for the
commercial site or the zoning may be considered for reversion to Rural-43 at
public hearing of the Board of Supervisors after recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, unless within such time the property is
annexed by the Town of Queen Creek.
f.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation or condition of
approval shall be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as
set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The property owner
and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if the County takes
action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with conditions.
g.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property owner to enjoy uses in excess of those
permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to
conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, a
hearing shall be scheduled with the Board of Supervisors for consideration
to revert the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore,
stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply
with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of
application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 18 of 26
be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date
of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date
the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the
same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
Zoning - Z2019136
District 2
Applicant:
Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Location:
Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast intersection of
Lone Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the northeast Phoenix area
Request:
Zone change from Rural-43 to R1-10 RUPD - Symmetry 56th St. & Lone
Mountain
Ms. Applegate presented Z2019136 and noted the proposed subdivision will be limited to
75 single family residential lots with a maximum density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre. The
preliminary plat with lotting lay out has not been submitted at this time. A traffic study
and grading and drainage plans will be required at the time of plat. The site would
include a centralized open space that accounts for 25% of the gross acreage. The site
would increase diversity of home ownership in the northeast valley. Access to the
subdivision will be a single gated access from 56th Street with a secondary emergency
access to Wildcat Drive with no access is proposed along Montgomery Road to the
south. The interior streets will be private and maintained by an HOA. The R-10 includes
deviations to reduce the front, side and street-side yard setbacks: modifications to the
lot area, lot width and lot coverage. The amended development standards would allow
the site to develop consistent with current residential markets in the area and provide
diversity of home ownership opportunities. Water and wastewater would be provided by
the City of Scottsdale and Phoenix, wastewater would be coordinated via an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with both cities. The applicant complied with the
requirements for the Citizen Review Process with the required posting and notification.
The applicant has indicated a representative walked door to door in the months of
November and December to explain the project. Staff has received numerous letters of
opposition, and additional letters were received after the printing of the packet and
were provided as a handout with an additional 19 letters in opposition. Staff received 48
signatures in support and 36 signatures in opposition. The concerns raised by the
neighbors include high density in an area designated as Rural, increased traffic, dust,
impact to the existing rural/equestrian lifestyles. Staff is supportive of this zone change
which will include service agreements for water and wastewater from the cities.
Reviewing county agencies do not have any objections to the request. Staff
recommends the commission motion for approval with conditions.
Ms. Ashley Marsh with Tiffany & Bosco said she is here representing Shea Homes. The
proposed site is in the north valley just off of 56th Street and Lone Mountain Road. There’s
quite of few subdivisions that have come online in the recent years within the City of
Phoenix ranging from more dense districts with Tatum Ranch and Monte Vista with R1-18
City of Phoenix zoning. Our request is to rezone 28 acres and the developer is Shea
Homes, a luxury home builder known for beautiful projects. This project would be no
exception. It was important for them to use buffering and to limit access and make sure
they thought about retention and drainage. They presented a second conceptual plan
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 19 of 26
so they can rethink and retool the circulation to accommodate a maximum of 75 lots
and possibly eliminate the lots on the eastern perimeter. They outreached the neighbors
a retooled the circulation plan and reorganized the entire circulation to provide
generous buffers on all side of the property. They would limit the size to 75 units for a
density of 2.7 d.u. and would all be single story. They would keep the gating and continue
to limit access making emergency access only on Wildcat and prohibiting access on the
southern part of the property on Montgomery. The neighbors were concerned about no
complete buffering on the northern side of the property. Shea Homes offered to do a no
build easement to retain some of those larger lots on the northern side of the property.
They went back to the drawing board and created a 25 foot landscape buffer on the
northern perimeter and shortened those lots. They were also asked to consider how to
fence this gated community to put a view on the southern perimeter so people driving
through Montgomery would have a little bit more of a view with a generous landscape
buffer of 130 feet. In response to comments that 75 units was too many, Shea also took
a 15 percent reduction and reduced it to 65 units. The entryway is going to be on 56th
Street and will provide significant buffering there as well. Shea Homes reduced the
number of lots, they provided significant buffering, and they maintained open space,
accounted for retention and drainage in making sure to be sensitive to the community.
They are also proposing a number of stipulations that are not in the staff report: the total
number of units shall not exceed 65, all residential lots shall be limited to single-story
homes, the developer shall provide a 25-foot landscape buffer on the southern and
northern perimeter of the property, and to put a view fence on the southern perimeter
of the property. This is a quality development from a quality builder, and there is growth
and development in this part of the valley. There is a need for a diverse product for a
diverse population and Shea Homes has done their homework, and they are here with
staff’s support.
Chairman Schlosser said he has several speaker cards and six have marked they do not
wish to speak. He will limit the speakers to two minutes.
Mr. Derek Wilson said he lives on the north side of the proposed site. He moved out there
five years ago to get away from master planned communities and HOA’s. The beauty of
the area is what drew him to this area. There have been four master plan communities
go in within a quarter-mile of his property. Traffic has increased, noise and light
contamination. They like it dark to look at the stars, and the wildlife has been diminished.
There has to be a place in this community where it isn’t paved over.
Mr. Jack Farmer said he lives within the 300 foot from the proposed site. The property
owners that adjoin the 28 acres, none of those people are in approval. The applicant
said they contacted all us and he is the largest property owner within 300 feet and he
thought they would have contacted him. He called them but they never scheduled a
meeting to meet face-to-face to discuss their project. He was told they did not want to
meet as a group but just one-on-one, and they have to contact the applicant. There is
going to be a playground that backs up to one of the homeowner’s and it’s probably
something they don’t want. The plan keeps changing, and the one he saw had 78 lots,
and two-story homes. Nothing has been nailed down and acceptable to the community,
and nothing presented by the applicant has been acceptable. R-10 just doesn’t fit the
area. There’s about 4-1/2 sections of land 3,000 plus acres that have less than 2,000
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 20 of 26
homes. The density for the entire area east of 56th Street is one acre plus homes. Most are
2-1/2 acre lots and 5 acre lots. He owns four parcels which makes 10 acres, and to say
the R1-10 fits the area. If you look at Lone Mountain north, it was State Land and there’s
778 homes on 660 acres. Nowhere close to the density Shea Homes is talking about. If
you go west it is R-18, and there is nothing R-10 north of Lone Mountain Road. R-10 is way
too dense. With the topography of the land there is a hump and if the County requires
Flood Control to raise the lots because the wash on the north side, then these lots will be
four feet higher than the property directly east of it. He was told by the Maricopa County
Flood Control it is a 404 wash and it requires a 30 foot set back from the wash bank. Who
is going to take care of the wash culvert crossing 56th Street? There is still a lot of
unanswered questions with this proposal and they keep changing. There are 17 owners
that surround that property and the people in the 300 feet, and nobody wants this
project. So where are those 46 approvals, are they in the City of Phoenix across the street
or down the street? We ask the Commission to deny this application and ask staff to
recommend to the developer that R-10 isn’t going to work in that area.
Chairman Schlosser said the applicant stated they are going to restrict themselves to 65
lots and single-story homes. For future speakers to speak to what the applicant has
already proposed and agreed to.
Ms. Elizabeth Bradley said she has lived on 2 acres in Cave Creek for 20 years, and she
moved to the area to live among large horse properties, dirt roads, and no street lights.
She likes the homes around them to be on large acreage so they aren’t on top of each
other. She enjoyed the grazing cattle on the open 28 acres. None of the 18 homeowners
bordering this property were notified and nothing door-to-door, they didn’t hear about
any of this stuff. It was all through word of mouth. Once she learned of what was being
proposed she got together with her neighbors and got 36 signatures, including the 18
bordering the property and none of them want this. This is a rural area and we don’t
want these cookie cutter homes, and this is not what we moved to this area for.
Ms. Marta Reus said she lives on the north side of Wildcat Drive adjacent to this property.
They moved out there 4 years ago looking for a rural environment with horse property.
She lives on a one acre lot with horses. She understands changes happen but this high
density proposal does not fit the look and feel of the community. She isn’t opposed to
development but this doesn’t fit the area.
Mr. Charles Shultz said he lives on 2-1/2 acres of horse property just to the east of the
proposed, with his shop that is right on the line. His house is on a knoll where they would
look right into that. Monday was the first time they have had any contact with these
people. We called them a month ago and said we haven’t received a letter or received
a call. They said they held off because they were making some changes. He is
concerned with his property, what is going to happen with his fencing and their property
and the buffer. He doesn’t like the idea looking into a row of homes. It really doesn’t fit
the neighborhood, and it should be more like 20 to 30 homes. It’ll go from really rural to
living in a town. They are all on septic systems out here, and he is wondering where all
the sewage is going to go, and as far as he knows there is really no sewer close to that.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 21 of 26
Mr. Charles Kuehl said he lives at the northeast parcel and the 28 acres of vacant land is
to the north and east of him. The corner lot where they have the proposed jungle gym
set backs up to his property. The road which is west on their development is right against
his east wall. This property is higher than his, and they don’t have a 20 foot buffer between
his property and their street. He would have a raised road running to the side of his
property, and his wall would now be down to a four or five foot wall. How are they going
to propose to put a buffer in there, and he wants to know about the jungle gym set going,
because this is the first he’s heard of it. He has the best view right now, and they are
going to ruin it with all these homes. It does not fit this area, and we are paying county
taxes, and we did not plan for this nor did we invest in this area for $500,000 homes when
the majority of their homes are million dollar homes. He asked the Commission to take
that into consideration.
Commissioner Arnett asked what his main opposition is because he has the largest buffer
on his property, and what concern does he have with the jungle gym. Mr. Kuehl said the
noise, and the population, and most jungle gyms have shade canopies and lighting, so
now his dark northeast view might have lights highlighting the shade canopy.
Mr. Pete Langlois said he lives two blocks away and is opposed to the rezoning. He asked
who is to benefit from all this. The nice park is around the land seller’s house, and Mr.
Shea and the attorney’s will all benefit from this. We don’t benefit at all. We get
increased noise, and the increased traffic will be horrendous. This is all horse property
and none of this makes any sense at all.
Mr. Kenneth Hardy said with the level of density, it will have a material financial impact
on his family. He has a lot tied up financially particularly building a home. It will hurt their
ability to retire and will extrapolate any equity that he saved up and stored in building
this home. He wants people to build but not to change the character.
Ms. Erin Gunderson said she lives on the north side of the proposed site. She is in real estate
and they were contacted in the beginning and have had meetings with Ashley and
Susan. We bought six years ago on 1-1/2 acres and it’s a good feeling to be in a
community where you can be 5 minutes from the Fry’s, but living in an area where you
enjoy what Arizona has to offer. The challenge is the concerns still remain, 75 to 65 homes
isn’t that big of a difference in comparison to the area. There aren’t homes on 10,000 sq.
feet they are 15,000 sq. feet on up. R-10 and 65 homes would limit that. The single story
homes is a benefit but it doesn’t solve the whole problem with the volume. If you buffer
everything around it but still have the same volume those concerns still remain.
Mr. Robert Young said he lives at the southwestern portion of the proposed site. In 2013
they started looking for property so they can build a home and raise their 5 year old
daughter. They put in a significant amount of their life savings to purchase this house. We
want Shea Homes to follow the rules in the neighborhood. The homes are 1-1/4 acres per
home, and are many 2-1/2 to 5 acres and are low light. He was never contacted but
when he called them they said it was 64 homes. They are concerned about their
property values, upgrading the roads, setbacks, low light levels, playgrounds, their views
and families.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 22 of 26
Mr. Jack Farmer said he wanted to clarify the open space buffering with a lot of it is
around the seller’s property. The property buffer on the south end where the applicant
was saying 80 to 100 feet buffer, 40 feet of that is the Montgomery Road dedication if a
person built a normal home across the street from Nancy and Homer, and they’ve
already dedicated their 40 feet. This is going to put 100 percent of the traffic on to the
south side of Montgomery that was dedicated by the south owner, and the north owner
is not going to dedicate according to this plan. This is just wrong. The developer should
dedicate that 40 feet as roadway and maybe 10 feet is buffer. Montgomery Road may
someday be a paved road, it is a dirt road right now. It is wrong to let the developer take
that 40 foot right-of-way and include it into their project. They are also including it in their
open space. If that wash is a 404 wash, all of those lots are going to have to come south
at least 20 feet.
Mr. Matt Arnold said he is the minority owner and he respects his neighbor’s opinion. His
family bought this property in the 70’s and early 80’s and they have watched every single
home go in. The question came up on who is going to benefit. His father purchased this
property to help benefit his kids in the future. When he was a senior in high school his dad
past away and he had to sell the house to his aunt, and he lived in a trailer on their land.
He sold hay and raised cows just to make it. He is going to sell this property and it is going
to benefit his kids.
Vice Chairman Cowley asked what the density plan for this parcel is. Mr. Holm said
because this is located in a county island, it would fall under rural development. The
density is whatever the existing zoning is and in this case is would be rural.
Vice Chairman Cowley asked do you take into consideration cities. Mr. Holm said yes, if
a county island is within a municipal planning area we look at the city plan for that area
and what the densities are for the future, because the expectation is if it is within a
municipal planning area that’s the area the municipality is planned. Therefore, the
assumption that some point in the future it could potentially be annexed.
Vice Chairman Cowley asked what the planning area is. Mr. Holm said it is the City of
Phoenix plan, so it’s within the Phoenix municipal planning area as residential with a
density of 0 to 2 units per acre.
Vice Chairman Cowley said so in the city they can do 56 lots. Mr. Holm said correct.
Ms. Marsh said the main concerns she’s heard is that there’s too many lots and the zoning
is incompatible. They stipulated to 65 lots. There’s been a number of lot counts, but those
have been misconceptions. Originally it was 75 lots and now they stipulated to 65 lots.
The zoning is compatible with recent development within the City of Phoenix, with a more
recent community Monte Vista at R1-18 and Bushwood R1-18. The City of Phoenix
designation does not prescribe a minimum lot size for R1-18, and it also allows density
between 2 and 2.3 for this zoning category. Our request comes out to a 2.3 density that
is compatible with subdivisions coming to this area. On the other side of 56th Street, there
is a 40 acre preserve and there will be a rural preservation owned by the City of Phoenix
and there is Lone Mountain School next to it. This is one of the last sites in this area to be
built out. Our proposal is in line with current development trends for this particular
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 23 of 26
proposal. Our minimum lot size will be over 10,000 square feet and that would be the
smallest the lots could go. This is not a novel lot size, it is a size that has been going in with
developments in this area. We have done significant landscaping buffers, and still
maintained that lot size. The lots on the northern side of the property would have been
bigger, but for that 25 foot landscape and the revised circulation plan. There’s been
some concession made on Shea’s side to go ahead and accommodate neighbors, and
what comes with that is a reduced lot size. A 10,000 square foot lot is more than the
smallest lot in the adjacent communities. This is under Maricopa County dark sky
ordinance which regulates street lights and landscape lighting. We will need a drainage
plan when we go through final plat. They have already designated three areas of
retention and have started mapping that out. We have two staff stipulations that are
holding our feet to the fire in making sure we have a drainage plan with a final plat and
also if required a map amendment from FEMA to make sure that drainage is adequately
provided for at the time of final plat. They talked to a traffic engineer to do some
preliminary analysis with looking at the 65 lot layout and they are not anticipating any
negative impacts with the traffic on to 56th Street. Our access has been approved by
Rural Metro limiting cut-through access on Wildcat with emergency access only. They
are not putting traffic on to Montgomery Road. They will work with MCDOT on the final
plat to see if they need to do any roadway dedications on 56th Street and Montgomery
Road. The area has changed dramatically, there are subdivisions and this lot size is not
uncommon. Shea is a quality builder, they are going to enhance resale values. In the last
year alone because of development in this area, resale has gone up 8.1% in value for
new homes. This is a quality development and a quality builder.
Commissioner Arnett said they mentioned who benefits and we aren’t the ones to
benefit. The reason we go through this process is to discuss the traffic, the drainage and
the noise, and we all play by the same rules. We’ve seen before where applicants aren’t
as thoughtful. It’s not every day we see presentations where they are trying to increase
buffers and address a lot of the concerns, and the stipulations seem to be very
reasonable.
Commissioner Montoya said we are volunteers and we are appointed by our respective
County Supervisors and we take this very serious. She has been on the Commission for
three years and she has yet to see an applicant to come in and make the kind of
changes that have been presented, and have added proposed stipulations. She
appreciates the applicant being flexible to try to do what they can to adjust to the
concerns of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Andersen said he agrees with what was said by the previous
Commissioners and he is comfortable with this proposed use and with the stipulations
being proposed.
Commissioner Arnett asked are these all the changes in these conditions. Ms. Applegate
said yes, and staff is in support of these conditions.
COMMISSION ACTION: Vice Chairman Cowley motioned to approve Z2019136 with
conditions ‘a’ – ‘o’ (includes applicant provided conditions ‘k’ – ‘o’). Commissioner Arnett
second. Approved 7-0.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 24 of 26
a.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning
Exhibit entitled “56th St. & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 1 full-size sheets,
dated February 2020 and stamped received March 3, 2020, except as
modified by the following conditions.
b.
Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
Narrative Report entitled “56th Street & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 13
pages, dated February 28, 2020, and stamped received March 2, 2020,
except as modified by the following conditions.
c.
The following R1-10 RUPD standards shall apply:
1.
Height: 30’/2 stories
2.
Front Yard: 10’
3.
Side Yard: 5’ & 10’
4.
Street-side Yard: 10’
5.
Rear Yard: 25’
6.
Minimum Lot Area: 10,125 sq. ft.
7.
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
8.
Average Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 12,000 sq. ft.
9.
Maximum Lot Coverage: 55%
10.
Parking Spaces: 2
d.
The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply:
1.
The development of the site will pose significant challenges with
respect to storm water management. Without the submittal of a
precise plan of development, no development approval is inferred
by this review, including, but not limited to drainage design, access
and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as
development plans progress and are submitted to the County for
further review and/or entitlement.
2.
A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement
application (i.e. preliminary plat).
3.
Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and
Montgomery Road (mid-section) will be required as part of future
entitlement (i.e. final plat), unless otherwise waived by MCDOT.
4.
If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be
submitted to the Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any
future entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat).
5.
All development and engineering design shall be in conformance
with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance;
Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for
Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current
engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of
application for construction.
e.
Zoning approval is conditional per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance,
Article 304.6, and ARS § 11-814 for five (5) years for the initial phase and an
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 25 of 26
additional five (5) years for each subsequent phase, within which time the
subdivision infrastructure permit or construction permit for each phase must
be obtained. The applicant shall submit a written report every five years
from the date of Board of Supervisors approval of Z2019136 which details
the status of this project, including progress on obtaining subdivision
infrastructure and/or construction permits. The status report to be
administratively reviewed by Planning and Development with the ability to
administratively accept or to carry the status report to the Board of
Supervisors (Board), upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission (Commission) for consideration of amendments or revocation
of zoning for undeveloped parcels. Status reports will be required until
completion of the initial subdivision infrastructure and/or construction
permits for each zoning parcel (R1-10 RUPD).
f.
Prior to approval of the initial final plat, the applicant shall provide the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department with the
approved Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Phoenix
and Scottsdale that is referenced in the February 26, 2020 letter issued by
Brian K. Biesmeyer, Executive Director of Scottsdale Water, or other
document acceptable to Maricopa County which assures sewer service.
g.
Prior to initial final plat approval, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa
County Planning and Development Department with a ‘will serve’ letter
from the City of Scottsdale or City of Phoenix for water service.
h.
Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for
initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the Maricopa
County Zoning Ordinance.
i.
The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in
value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance
with conditions.
j.
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request
of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this
approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by
the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the
event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property shall revert
to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore,
stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply
with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of
application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would
be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date
of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone
Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date
the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the
same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Meeting of March 12, 2020
Page 26 of 26
k.
The total number of residential units shall not exceed 65.
l.
All residential lots shall be limited to single-story homes.
m.
The developer shall provide a 25-foot open space buffer on the northern
perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowner Association.
n.
The developer shall provide a landscape buffer on the north side of the
southern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association.
o.
The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the
property.
Chairman Schlosser adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
Prepared by Rosalie Pinney
Recording Secretary
March 12, 2020